On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:55:10 -0600, "Ken Davey"
wrote:

Strider wrote:
"Buddy" wrote in message
...



OK..I'll try to keep it simple....When is a fetus a baby? You may
use more
than one sentence to answer. Please use references to the facts.

I don't know when a fetus becomes a baby and neither do you.

and THAT'S the facts.

Strider


Thank You, so then the government should legislate your views?
All I am saying is that it's not the governments job to decide.

Buddy


So, should we abolish all laws regarding killing people because it's
not the government's job to decide?

Strider

Ayup!!!

It has been suggested that the time be moved to about
three days AFTER birth.
That gives the parents a bit of time to check the product
out & decide.

HTH
--
Cliff

Another illustration can be found in the laws forbidding the discharge
of a gun in cities, except in the defense of an innocent person or
property I might add. I cannot shot my gun, in the air or even in the
ground, within my town limits. Why? Because society has determined
that doing so "might" kill or injure some other human. Note that the
law does not allow me the privacy to make that decision to fire based
on my personal belief that no one would be injured.

Now either that law is unconstitutional or Roe v. Wade is based on
faulty reasoning :^).

John



Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:53:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress
says...

You will not find that the Court defined when a fetus acquires a
Constitutional right to life. . .although the legal status is that it has
begun by the third trimester. Furthermore, you will find that the legal
reasoning in the majority opinion constitutes a very hard-nosed
Constitutional originalism.

Happy reading.

The difficulty is, I doubt they can read. And if they can,
they already have their minds made up. It's wrong so they
can and should ignore the law. The end justifies the means
as far as they are concerned.

Of the several times I've chimed in here regarding the abortion issue, I
have yet to hear back from anyone who appears to have read the majority
opinion, or Stewart's concurring opinion. . .or anyone who even appears to
know what the Court said. Getting into Stewart's out-of-Court interviews and
writings about the legal basis for Roe v. Wade is out of the question, when
people still seem to think that the Court decided when life begins.

For the record, here's a quote from the Opinion of the Court (the majority
opinion):

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at
conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the
State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after
conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.
When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy,
and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this
point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to
speculate as to the answer..."


Hey Ed, long time no see :^). I hope all is well with you and yours.

No one that I know is arguing the point of when life begins, they only
say they believe it's at conception. Just like the
pro-abortionists/choice people say they don't know. When life begins
is not the issue, just as you have pointed out. The issue is does the
woman have the right (based on a valid privacy principle) to decide
when life begins for herself, exclusive to societies right and
obligation to protect the innocent.

Society has the right to regulate personal behaviour that has the
potential to kill or harm others. Wouldn't you agree?

Personally I believe life begins "before" conception :^). Can you
understand how that's possible :^).

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On 22 Oct 2004 02:34:06 -0700, (Cliff Huprich)
wrote:

In article n%Zdd.16921$232.738@trnddc09, "invntrr" writes:

WE live in a nation that believes we are not executed until all reasonable
doubt is of our innocence is removed ...

Not at all true.
Example: Texas under Herr shrubbie ... he refused to allow
DNA evidence .... sort of the execution capitol, right?
131+ executions .....

So you agree with him then Cliff :^). No one should be killed without
all evidence considered and all reasonable doubt removed.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:59:24 +0100, Guido wrote:

Strider wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Strider wrote:

Please define when it's OK to kill babies.


When its done with a laser guided bomb!


Not if done intentionally, as per the many International treaties and the
laws of most nations.

I suppose that you also are opposed to suicide bombers killing the local
children as well?


None of the above makes sense and I can't even hazzard a
guess at what you are trying to say. Please rephrase.

In war killing of innocents is considered the responsibility of the
guilty side (the one being warred against). Unless the children have
been intentionally targeted. In other words if it wasn't for the fact
the bad guy made us have to go to war the child would not have died.

A similar situation is found in high speed police chases where the cop
hits and kills someone. The person he was chasing is charged with
manslaughter, or murder, because the cop was right to chase and the
person would not have been killed except for the irresponsibility of
the person fleeing.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

Another illustration can be found in the laws forbidding the discharge
of a gun in cities, except in the defense of an innocent person or
property I might add. I cannot shot my gun, in the air or even in the
ground, within my town limits. Why? Because society has determined
that doing so "might" kill or injure some other human. Note that the
law does not allow me the privacy to make that decision to fire based
on my personal belief that no one would be injured.

That's right. You don't get to guess on that one. We don't want to hear you
say, "oops," when you haven't a freaking clue about where it will come down
and there are people all around.


Now either that law is unconstitutional or Roe v. Wade is based on
faulty reasoning :^).

How so? Do you care to tell us where the faulty reasoning is in Roe v. Wade?
Have you read Roe v. Wade?

Ed Huntress

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:53:34 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed
Huntress
says...

You will not find that the Court defined when a fetus acquires a
Constitutional right to life. . .although the legal status is that it
has
begun by the third trimester. Furthermore, you will find that the
legal
reasoning in the majority opinion constitutes a very hard-nosed
Constitutional originalism.

Happy reading.

The difficulty is, I doubt they can read. And if they can,
they already have their minds made up. It's wrong so they
can and should ignore the law. The end justifies the means
as far as they are concerned.

Of the several times I've chimed in here regarding the abortion issue, I
have yet to hear back from anyone who appears to have read the majority
opinion, or Stewart's concurring opinion. . .or anyone who even appears
to
know what the Court said. Getting into Stewart's out-of-Court interviews
and
writings about the legal basis for Roe v. Wade is out of the question,
when
people still seem to think that the Court decided when life begins.

For the record, here's a quote from the Opinion of the Court (the
majority
opinion):

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at
conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the
State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after
conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life
begins.
When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy,
and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at
this
point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to
speculate as to the answer..."


Hey Ed, long time no see :^). I hope all is well with you and yours.

Hi, John. 'Wondered where you got to. All's well here, and I hope the same
it true for you.



No one that I know is arguing the point of when life begins, they only
say they believe it's at conception.

Yeah, well, their belief is all well and good, but it's just opinion.

Just like the
pro-abortionists/choice people say they don't know. When life begins
is not the issue, just as you have pointed out. The issue is does the
woman have the right (based on a valid privacy principle) to decide
when life begins for herself, exclusive to societies right and
obligation to protect the innocent.

She doesn't have to. There is nothing in the Constitution that indicates the
right to life, or to anything else, begins before birth. See the extensive
citations and documentation in Roe v. Wade if you need confirmation.


Society has the right to regulate personal behaviour that has the
potential to kill or harm others. Wouldn't you agree?

Only sometimes. There are lots of actions that are protected, which have the
potential to harm others. You have a right to free speech, and you can
intentionally or unintentionally say something that will result in someone
else dying. That doesn't end your right to speech.


Personally I believe life begins "before" conception :^). Can you
understand how that's possible :^).

Sure, but that doesn't mean I understand you. g

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:35:04 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:


Another illustration can be found in the laws forbidding the discharge
of a gun in cities, except in the defense of an innocent person or
property I might add. I cannot shot my gun, in the air or even in the
ground, within my town limits. Why? Because society has determined
that doing so "might" kill or injure some other human. Note that the
law does not allow me the privacy to make that decision to fire based
on my personal belief that no one would be injured.

Now either that law is unconstitutional or Roe v. Wade is based on
faulty reasoning :^).

John


Oh your good!

Very well reasoned!

One should also note that those laws don't make the exception for
people who shoot blanks instead of live ammo.

Not even in the third trimester.

Gunner



Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:35:04 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:


Another illustration can be found in the laws forbidding the discharge
of a gun in cities, except in the defense of an innocent person or
property I might add. I cannot shot my gun, in the air or even in the
ground, within my town limits. Why? Because society has determined
that doing so "might" kill or injure some other human. Note that the
law does not allow me the privacy to make that decision to fire based
on my personal belief that no one would be injured.

Now either that law is unconstitutional or Roe v. Wade is based on
faulty reasoning :^).

John


Oh your good!

Very well reasoned!

You're joking, right? Please tell us you're joking...

Ed Huntress

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:39:26 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:

On 22 Oct 2004 02:34:06 -0700, (Cliff Huprich)
wrote:

In article n%Zdd.16921$232.738@trnddc09, "invntrr" writes:

WE live in a nation that believes we are not executed until all reasonable
doubt is of our innocence is removed ...

Not at all true.
Example: Texas under Herr shrubbie ... he refused to allow
DNA evidence .... sort of the execution capitol, right?
131+ executions .....

So you agree with him then Cliff :^). No one should be killed without
all evidence considered and all reasonable doubt removed.

You seem confused. A bit late to the thread?
Consider set theory ......
--
Cliff

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:49:15 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:

In war killing of innocents is considered the responsibility of the
guilty side (the one being warred against).

So if I declare war against you and kill your relatives you are
guilty?

Unless the children have
been intentionally targeted.

So only children can be "innocent"?
Suppose I only targeted your house & those of your relatives?
If anyone was killed it's an accident, right?

In other words if it wasn't for the fact
the bad guy made us have to go to war

So all I have to do is claim that in some imagined future you
*might* get a gun? An excellent case of self-defense if I'm
later caught looting the remains of your bombed out house.

the child would not have died.

It's all your fault. Else I'd not have bombed your house. Or
those of your relatives. Or lied about the danger I might someday
be in.
It's all your fault.

A similar situation is found in high speed police chases where the cop
hits and kills someone. The person he was chasing is charged with
manslaughter, or murder, because the cop was right to chase and the
person would not have been killed except for the irresponsibility of
the person fleeing.

Many areas have restricted such chases. They are right to have
done so.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:58:11 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

Just like the
pro-abortionists/choice people say they don't know. When life begins
is not the issue, just as you have pointed out. The issue is does the
woman have the right (based on a valid privacy principle) to decide
when life begins for herself, exclusive to societies right and
obligation to protect the innocent.

She doesn't have to. There is nothing in the Constitution that indicates the
right to life, or to anything else, begins before birth. See the extensive
citations and documentation in Roe v. Wade if you need confirmation.


All men are *created* equal, endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, one of which is life.

Isn't this the basis of our legal system? The constitution being the
codification of rights given by God? The notion of free speech, the
right to bear arms to defend against tyrants, etc.

There are all sorts of things that aren't "in" the constitution isn't
there? Much the same as the Bible doesn't specifically mention the
Trinity, although it sure implies it indirectly. I believe the same
is true for the constitution. The issue is; Is the fetus a human
life? It might very well be, and maybe it isn't. But if it is it was
created by God and has certain inalienable rights amoung which is life
itself. Like the hunter shooting the rustling bush, until we can
prove that the fetus is not a human life it is wrong for society to
allow it to be killed.


Society has the right to regulate personal behaviour that has the
potential to kill or harm others. Wouldn't you agree?

Only sometimes. There are lots of actions that are protected, which have the
potential to harm others. You have a right to free speech, and you can
intentionally or unintentionally say something that will result in someone
else dying. That doesn't end your right to speech.

Seems to me Free Speech is the right to advocate something as good for
society (whether or not it actually is). No one can possibly be
harmed by that. That is until someone takes physical action to do so.
*That* can be regulated, and should be.


Personally I believe life begins "before" conception :^). Can you
understand how that's possible :^).

Sure, but that doesn't mean I understand you. g

Whatever a human being is God creates, not the mother and father. And
he does so before the child is even conceived. The child is a gift
from God. :^)

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:11:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

Another illustration can be found in the laws forbidding the discharge
of a gun in cities, except in the defense of an innocent person or
property I might add. I cannot shot my gun, in the air or even in the
ground, within my town limits. Why? Because society has determined
that doing so "might" kill or injure some other human. Note that the
law does not allow me the privacy to make that decision to fire based
on my personal belief that no one would be injured.

That's right. You don't get to guess on that one. We don't want to hear you
say, "oops," when you haven't a freaking clue about where it will come down
and there are people all around.


Now either that law is unconstitutional or Roe v. Wade is based on
faulty reasoning :^).

How so? Do you care to tell us where the faulty reasoning is in Roe v. Wade?
Have you read Roe v. Wade?

No, I haven't. I'm not active in the abortion issue although I know a
number of people including my sister that are.

Perhaps you can instruct me on what the basis is for the decision. My
understanding, which may be wrong, is that it's a privacy issue. It
is up to the woman, her doctor and her God to decide what is right or
wrong about abortion, not the government.

That is why I say it's based on faulty reasoning. It's as if the
court is saying that truth and reality are realtive. It's up to the
individual to decide if the fetus is a human life. As an absolutist
this is ridiculous. If the fetus is a life then it is a life
regardless of your or my opinion on the issue.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:06:25 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:49:15 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:

In war killing of innocents is considered the responsibility of the
guilty side (the one being warred against).

So if I declare war against you and kill your relatives you are
guilty?

If the war against me was righteous, yes. Just like the cop chasing
someone and the cop ends up killing a pedestrian for instance. The
one being chased is charged with a crime.

Unless the children have
been intentionally targeted.

So only children can be "innocent"?
Suppose I only targeted your house & those of your relatives?
If anyone was killed it's an accident, right?

No, then you'd be guilty because you intentionally targeted people who
were not guilty. Key word is intentionally.


In other words if it wasn't for the fact
the bad guy made us have to go to war

So all I have to do is claim that in some imagined future you
*might* get a gun? An excellent case of self-defense if I'm
later caught looting the remains of your bombed out house.

??? I didn't follow your reasoning here.

the child would not have died.

It's all your fault. Else I'd not have bombed your house. Or
those of your relatives. Or lied about the danger I might someday
be in.
It's all your fault.

If the case for war against me was just and the relatives weren't
intentionally targeted (assuming they had no involvemnt in my
injustice) then yes, the fact my house and my innocent relatives
houses were bombed is my fault.

When America bombed Japan and destroyed cities I'm sure many people
whose homes were destroyed and lives were lost were people who opposed
Japan's militarism. Are you saying the Americans were guilty for
killing them? Or was Imperial Japan guilty for bringing it upon
them???

A similar situation is found in high speed police chases where the cop
hits and kills someone. The person he was chasing is charged with
manslaughter, or murder, because the cop was right to chase and the
person would not have been killed except for the irresponsibility of
the person fleeing.

Many areas have restricted such chases. They are right to have
done so.

I noticed your reasoning is way off here. When these localities
restricted high speed chases they didn't say the offender wasn't
guilty of murder, only that it wasn't worth risking innocent lives to
chase persons who flee when they are only suspected of non-violent
offenses.

The principle in the example remains unchallenged. The person being
chased is guilty of the death of the person killed by the cop who was
chasing him, even though it was the cop that killed the person!

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...


All men are *created* equal, endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, one of which is life.

Isn't this the basis of our legal system?

No, it's not. That's the Declaration of Independence. The basis of our legal
system is the Constitution.

John, you're going to play word games, and mix it up with some superstition
and ersatz history. That's what you do, and that's the basis of your
philosophy. I've seen it here for years.

I'm in no mood for games. Let's cut to the chase. Show us anything in the
Constitution that suggests that a person has rights before he is born. You
can take it from there.

The constitution being the
codification of rights given by God? The notion of free speech, the
right to bear arms to defend against tyrants, etc.
There are all sorts of things that aren't "in" the constitution isn't
there? Much the same as the Bible doesn't specifically mention the
Trinity, although it sure implies it indirectly. I believe the same
is true for the constitution.

The "implies it indirectly" part is going to get you in trouble with the
originalists here. That's exactly what they're opposed to. Did you ever read
Griswold vs. Connecticut? You'll see your words there, dressed up a bit. The
Justices said "penumbras and emanations."

Find the words, John. Or find the history that supports your "implications."
It's not there, John.

The issue is; Is the fetus a human
life?

No, that's not the issue. The legal issue is whether a fetus has rights. If
you've actually read Roe v. Wade, and followed its historical, religious,
and legal citations and annotations, you'll see that the question is whether
there is a basis for declaring rights for an unborn fetus. There is not --
not under the Constitution, not under common law, and not in the history of
any substantial religion. In fact, the idea that abortion should be illegal
was hardly a murmer at the time the Constitution was written. It had its
first stirrings in the 1840s, and reached full chat around 1890 to 1900.
Well into the 20th century, abortion was not considered a crime in many
states.

It might very well be, and maybe it isn't. But if it is it was
created by God and has certain inalienable rights amoung which is life
itself.

Word magic, John. You're getting trapped by words and religion that people
have made up as they go along. It isn't in any Western religious tradition.
It's made up by people, and they've done it all quite recently, in
historical terms.

Like the hunter shooting the rustling bush, until we can
prove that the fetus is not a human life it is wrong for society to
allow it to be killed.

Tell us what you believe a "human life" is, and why you believe it, and what
relation it has to rights under law. No religion allowed. Or, if you're
going to employ religion, you have a religious argument, which I reject
absolutely. Then you have an opinion, and I have one. But the issue is the
law under the Constitution.

If you want to deal with it as a Constitutional issue, I'll debate it with
you.

Society has the right to regulate personal behaviour that has the
potential to kill or harm others. Wouldn't you agree?

Only sometimes. There are lots of actions that are protected, which have
the
potential to harm others. You have a right to free speech, and you can
intentionally or unintentionally say something that will result in
someone
else dying. That doesn't end your right to speech.

Seems to me Free Speech is the right to advocate something as good for
society (whether or not it actually is). No one can possibly be
harmed by that.

Absolutely not. You totally misunderstand the concept. Whether it's good for
society or not is a result of the right and the process of free speech. But
any individual speech may be good or bad. You don't know in advance; the
principle is based on the outcome of the process, not on particular speech.

Personally I believe life begins "before" conception :^). Can you
understand how that's possible :^).

Sure, but that doesn't mean I understand you. g

Whatever a human being is God creates, not the mother and father. And
he does so before the child is even conceived. The child is a gift
from God. :^)

That's a very nice thought. It's also irrelevant.

If you're going to tell us that you think the Constitution requires that
abortion be criminalized, make your legal argument. If you're going to tell
us that God so requires, then have a nice day.

Ed Huntress

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:11:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

Another illustration can be found in the laws forbidding the discharge
of a gun in cities, except in the defense of an innocent person or
property I might add. I cannot shot my gun, in the air or even in the
ground, within my town limits. Why? Because society has determined
that doing so "might" kill or injure some other human. Note that the
law does not allow me the privacy to make that decision to fire based
on my personal belief that no one would be injured.

That's right. You don't get to guess on that one. We don't want to hear
you
say, "oops," when you haven't a freaking clue about where it will come
down
and there are people all around.


Now either that law is unconstitutional or Roe v. Wade is based on
faulty reasoning :^).

How so? Do you care to tell us where the faulty reasoning is in Roe v.
Wade?
Have you read Roe v. Wade?

No, I haven't. I'm not active in the abortion issue although I know a
number of people including my sister that are.

Perhaps you can instruct me on what the basis is for the decision. My
understanding, which may be wrong, is that it's a privacy issue. It
is up to the woman, her doctor and her God to decide what is right or
wrong about abortion, not the government.

That is why I say it's based on faulty reasoning. It's as if the
court is saying that truth and reality are realtive. It's up to the
individual to decide if the fetus is a human life. As an absolutist
this is ridiculous. If the fetus is a life then it is a life
regardless of your or my opinion on the issue.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk
email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

Whoops, I hit the wrong button...

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

Now either that law is unconstitutional or Roe v. Wade is based on
faulty reasoning :^).

How so? Do you care to tell us where the faulty reasoning is in Roe v.
Wade?
Have you read Roe v. Wade?

No, I haven't. I'm not active in the abortion issue although I know a
number of people including my sister that are.

I have to tell you that my patience is going to be very short on this
thread. You have an opinion about Roe v. Wade, but you've never read Roe v.
Wade. So you have an opinion but you don't know what you have an opinion
about. I don't spend a lot of time talking to people who do that.


Perhaps you can instruct me on what the basis is for the decision. My
understanding, which may be wrong, is that it's a privacy issue. It
is up to the woman, her doctor and her God to decide what is right or
wrong about abortion, not the government.

First, read the case. It's loaded with references that will flesh the issue
out for you. Read the concurring and dissenting opinions to get some
perspective. You'll find it he

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=410&invol=113


That is why I say it's based on faulty reasoning. It's as if the
court is saying that truth and reality are realtive.

You don't know what the Court is saying, because you haven't read the case.
Read the case. Then you'll be able to form an opinion that's worthy of the
name.

It's up to the
individual to decide if the fetus is a human life. As an absolutist
this is ridiculous.

As an absolutist, you are being ridiculous, because you have an opinion
about a court case that you've never even read. How can you sit there with a
straight face and tell us the case is "ridiculous," when you don't even know
what's in it? I don't understand how people can do that.

I know you mean well, John, but life is finite, and arguing with someone who
holds opinions on things he hasn't made an effort to understand is low on my
list of priorities. If you want to talk about it, read the case.

Ed Huntress

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:11:54 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Whoops, I hit the wrong button...

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

It's up to the
individual to decide if the fetus is a human life. As an absolutist
this is ridiculous.

As an absolutist, you are being ridiculous, because you have an opinion
about a court case that you've never even read. How can you sit there with a
straight face and tell us the case is "ridiculous," when you don't even know
what's in it? I don't understand how people can do that.

Like many things in life we discuss things based on second hand
knowledge gained from what others have said about it. Who has the
time to personally investigate everything we discuss from day to day?
But, it is always important to realize when you're basing your
opinions on second hand knowledge and to act according lest you be
proven to not know what you're talking about.

My understanding is that abortion rights is based on the notion of
freedom of conscience, ie privacy, which also is the basis of freedom
of speech. I may be wrong though. Does the link you give have the
majority and minority opinions too?

I know you mean well, John, but life is finite, and arguing with someone who
holds opinions on things he hasn't made an effort to understand is low on my
list of priorities. If you want to talk about it, read the case.


Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:49:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

The issue is; Is the fetus a human
life?

No, that's not the issue. The legal issue is whether a fetus has rights. If
you've actually read Roe v. Wade, and followed its historical, religious,
and legal citations and annotations, you'll see that the question is whether
there is a basis for declaring rights for an unborn fetus. There is not --
not under the Constitution, not under common law, and not in the history of
any substantial religion. In fact, the idea that abortion should be illegal
was hardly a murmer at the time the Constitution was written. It had its
first stirrings in the 1840s, and reached full chat around 1890 to 1900.
Well into the 20th century, abortion was not considered a crime in many
states.

So according to you we can say the fetus is a human being but that
being said it has no right to life?

And all men are created equal has no bearing on our legal system?
Then slavery really is legal isn't it, constitutionally speaking? You
really can justify discrimination based on genetics and so on and so
on. You know more about this than I, perhaps there's an amendment
that banned slavery :^)? And if all men are created equal and God has
not given us certain inalienable rights then the constitution does not
contain "rights" does it? Only privileges that are granted by the
majority and can be taken away by the majority. A right is something
only God can give and cannot be taken away by men. A right is
something I can always "rightfully" fight for. If these rights are
only privileges then if would be "wrong" for me to resist forcefully
if the majority took them away.

IIRC, in the OT hitting a woman so she looses a child was considered
either murder or manslaugter. I'd have to look it up again. Exodus
21:22-23, the keyword is made from two Hebrew words meaning to bring
forth a child. Some interprete this to mean a miscarriage but I and
others interprete it to mean premature birth with all the problems
that can bring. Actual miscarriage and other physical damage to the
child is addressed in the next verse, verse 23. But it can be argued
that the passage refers to miscarriage.

But there are numerous other passages that imply life before birth.
In the Gospels where John the Baptist lept for joy while still in the
womb. God saying He knew us before we were born, etc.

So I'm not sure where you got the idea that no substantial religion
indicated life began prior to birth?

If abortion was not considered a crime in many states then I take it
it was a crime in others. There can only be one truth and one right
and wrong so which is it?

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:49:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


I'm in no mood for games. Let's cut to the chase. Show us anything in the
Constitution that suggests that a person has rights before he is born. You
can take it from there.

If the Constitution does not directly address that a person has rights
prior to birth then doesn't that leave it to the states to decide?
Unless there is some overriding principle?

These are real questions not rhetorical ones :^). As I said you seem
to know more about it than I do.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:40:39 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:06:25 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:49:15 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:

In war killing of innocents is considered the responsibility of the
guilty side (the one being warred against).

So if I declare war against you and kill your relatives you are
guilty?

If the war against me was righteous, yes.

Like my claims that someday you might have had "WMDs" or
*someday* you *might* have become a danger?
THEN I can kill you & your relatives? All I have to do is announce
that I claim that someday might .....

Just like the cop chasing
someone and the cop ends up killing a pedestrian for instance. The
one being chased is charged with a crime.

Theory & practice of excuses?
Under US law had the neocons murdered over 100,000 directly
what would they be charged with? Oops .... they won an election ...
they still murdered all those poor people and are murdering more
every day.

BTW, Where did all the US tax money for "reconstruction" go?

Unless the children have
been intentionally targeted.

So only children can be "innocent"?
Suppose I only targeted your house & those of your relatives?
If anyone was killed it's an accident, right?

No, then you'd be guilty because you intentionally targeted people who
were not guilty. Key word is intentionally.

Than I'm safe as I only targeted the houses. I did not
care who was inside them or nearby. That's just collateral
damage and may just annoy a few .... but they don't matter ....

In other words if it wasn't for the fact
the bad guy made us have to go to war

So all I have to do is claim that in some imagined future you
*might* get a gun? An excellent case of self-defense if I'm
later caught looting the remains of your bombed out house.

??? I didn't follow your reasoning here.

Going to grow up a winger?

What's the secret energy plan? What's the Wolfowitz doctrine?
What's a neocon? What's a fundie praying for Armageddon?

the child would not have died.

It's all your fault. Else I'd not have bombed your house. Or
those of your relatives. Or lied about the danger I might someday
be in.
It's all your fault.

If the case for war against me was just

What's your religion?
What are lies & false claims?

and the relatives weren't
intentionally targeted (assuming they had no involvemnt in my
injustice) then yes, the fact my house and my innocent relatives
houses were bombed is my fault.

So anyone else can do exactly the same to you and make similar
claims and you will not object?
"He's dead. It's Okay. The winner was justified. It's clearly so
because you are dead. Had it been unjustified you would sue (IF
we allowed you a lawyer, the time to do so, an actual court to sue
in and the funds to pay a few hunderd lawyers worse than ours.)"

When America bombed Japan and destroyed cities I'm sure many people
whose homes were destroyed and lives were lost were people who opposed
Japan's militarism. Are you saying the Americans were guilty for
killing them? Or was Imperial Japan guilty for bringing it upon
them???

This also was very, very wrong.
A demo bomb or two on a mountain or in Tokyo Bay perhaps .....
sometimes folks just get in such a rush .... daily paint bombs in
silly colors on Sadam's palaces from 40,000 feet would have been
amusing IF the US had any such rights in the first place. It DID NOT
and they well knew it .... even after tapping phones at the UN ...

Why do you think they thought they needed to tell all the lies in
the first place? No answer? Why do they keep telling them? Why
are suckers born?

A similar situation is found in high speed police chases where the cop
hits and kills someone. The person he was chasing is charged with
manslaughter, or murder, because the cop was right to chase and the
person would not have been killed except for the irresponsibility of
the person fleeing.

Many areas have restricted such chases. They are right to have
done so.

I noticed your reasoning is way off here.

Huh? So you think that they are insane to have put a stop
to it?

When these localities
restricted high speed chases they didn't say the offender wasn't
guilty of murder, only that it wasn't worth risking innocent lives to
chase persons who flee when they are only suspected of non-violent
offenses.

And? Before you were praising such chases.

You *suspect* it's a "murder suspect" in all those chases?
Got his plate number?

The principle in the example remains unchallenged. The person being
chased is guilty of the death of the person killed by the cop who was
chasing him, even though it was the cop that killed the person!

Because of poor driving & judgement by the cop?

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

You perhaps should send me a good one ... IIRC I have some stuff
....
--
Cliff

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

It's up to the
individual to decide if the fetus is a human life. As an absolutist
this is ridiculous.

As an absolutist, you are being ridiculous, because you have an opinion
about a court case that you've never even read. How can you sit there
with a
straight face and tell us the case is "ridiculous," when you don't even
know
what's in it? I don't understand how people can do that.

Like many things in life we discuss things based on second hand
knowledge gained from what others have said about it. Who has the
time to personally investigate everything we discuss from day to day?

Of course we discuss things that we don't have time to investigate. But if
you say that the reasoning behind some court case is ridiculous, it might
help your case if you actually had read what you're saying is ridiculous.
g

But, it is always important to realize when you're basing your
opinions on second hand knowledge and to act according lest you be
proven to not know what you're talking about.

My understanding is that abortion rights is based on the notion of
freedom of conscience, ie privacy, which also is the basis of freedom
of speech. I may be wrong though. Does the link you give have the
majority and minority opinions too?

It contains all three opinions: the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice
Blackman; a concurring opinion, written by Stewart; and the dissenting
opinion, written by Rehnquist.

It also contains as extensive list of citations that you can check to
explore any angle of it you want to. It's a complete tutorial in the state
of the Constitution regarding abortion.

You have to know something about the 14th Amendment's history to fully
understand Rehnquist's argument, but you'll get the idea.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:49:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...

The issue is; Is the fetus a human
life?

No, that's not the issue. The legal issue is whether a fetus has rights.
If
you've actually read Roe v. Wade, and followed its historical, religious,
and legal citations and annotations, you'll see that the question is
whether
there is a basis for declaring rights for an unborn fetus. There is
not --
not under the Constitution, not under common law, and not in the history
of
any substantial religion. In fact, the idea that abortion should be
illegal
was hardly a murmer at the time the Constitution was written. It had its
first stirrings in the 1840s, and reached full chat around 1890 to 1900.
Well into the 20th century, abortion was not considered a crime in many
states.

So according to you we can say the fetus is a human being but that
being said it has no right to life?

The question is the nature of its "being" before it is born. That's the
unanswerable practical and legal problem. If you have a supra-religious
interest in metaphysics, it's also a philosophical problem.


And all men are created equal has no bearing on our legal system?

When does the creation become a man (or a woman)? How do you know?

Then slavery really is legal isn't it, constitutionally speaking?

Non sequitur.

You
really can justify discrimination based on genetics and so on and so
on.

Of course. You discriminate all the time. You can't live without
discriminating.

However, if you're talking about denying equal rights, then no, you can't.

You know more about this than I, perhaps there's an amendment
that banned slavery :^)?

Non sequitur.

And if all men are created equal and God has
not given us certain inalienable rights then the constitution does not
contain "rights" does it?

There are three fundamental ideas about the sources of "rights." A book is
to be published this week or next that supposedly makes a fourth one, the
most thorough argument to date for the idea, which is that rights are what
we want and what we believe are correct because we recognize and reject
wrongs.

The title is something like "Rights and Wrongs." That may be the exact
title, in fact. You ought to look for it.

A right is something
only God can give and cannot be taken away by men.

As I said, there's a new book you may be interested in.

A right is
something I can always "rightfully" fight for. If these rights are
only privileges then if would be "wrong" for me to resist forcefully
if the majority took them away.

It sounds to me like you're letting your thinking be dictated by a
dictionary and the feeble variety of ideas and representations we are given
in the form of words.

Do you have a right to privacy? Do you have a right to vote? Do you have a
right to shelter? Why or why not?


IIRC, in the OT hitting a woman so she looses a child was considered
either murder or manslaugter. I'd have to look it up again.

That's based on the presumption that the woman intended to bring the fetus
to term. That's always the assumption. That's the mother's prerogative;
carrying a fetus by choice is an expression of her intent. And if she so
intends, the potential person (as the Supreme Court uses the term) assumes
the status of an actual person. It acquires legal being.

It's an interesting philosophical point. It's also well ensconsed in common
law.

Exodus
21:22-23, the keyword is made from two Hebrew words meaning to bring
forth a child.

Irrelevant.

Some interprete this to mean a miscarriage but I and
others interprete it to mean premature birth with all the problems
that can bring. Actual miscarriage and other physical damage to the
child is addressed in the next verse, verse 23. But it can be argued
that the passage refers to miscarriage.

It is meaningless.


But there are numerous other passages that imply life before birth.
In the Gospels where John the Baptist lept for joy while still in the
womb. God saying He knew us before we were born, etc.

We have no reason to care.


So I'm not sure where you got the idea that no substantial religion
indicated life began prior to birth?

I said no such thing. I was talking about prohibitions and crime, not
philosophy. You can confirm the facts of this by following the documentation
used in the citations for the Court's opinion in Roe.


If abortion was not considered a crime in many states then I take it
it was a crime in others. There can only be one truth and one right
and wrong so which is it?

Those are very foolish words, John. All morality is a matter of what one
group or another believes is right or wrong. And most of them are
absolutists, not relativists; most of the world is certain that you are
absolutely wrong about many things, for example. And they have the scripture
to prove it.

Ed Huntress

"John Flanagan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:49:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


I'm in no mood for games. Let's cut to the chase. Show us anything in the
Constitution that suggests that a person has rights before he is born.
You
can take it from there.

If the Constitution does not directly address that a person has rights
prior to birth then doesn't that leave it to the states to decide?

Rehnquist and Bork would agree. Scalia too, probably. But, in the opinion of
most legal scholars, they would be wrong in this case. Roe v. Wade is a real
dilemma for legal scholars who don't like the outcome, because the
principles of it are very hard to deny without doing serious damage to
certain principles of Constitutional rights.

Bork doesn't accept those principles, so he has no problem with it -- except
that he's a stickler for precedent.

Unless there is some overriding principle?

There is. It's a potential conflict of rights, but, in the end, there is no
conflict because there is no Constitutional establishment of rights for a
gestating fetus. That's the crux of Roe. But don't leave it at that. There's
a lot more to it.


These are real questions not rhetorical ones :^). As I said you seem
to know more about it than I do.

All you have to do is to read the case. You'll have 50% or more of it right
there. Then you can start to read the commentary *with real knowledge* about
what's being commented upon.

Ed Huntress

In article , John Flanagan says...

My understanding is that abortion rights (are) based on the notion of
freedom of conscience, ie privacy, which also is the basis of freedom
of speech. I may be wrong though.

John you need to give this discussion with ed up. He is talking
in a knowledgeable way about the legal implications. He is
talking about specific features of the existing case law that
cannot be wished away. They are the present law of the land
and no matter how much you feel otherwise, you are bound
by those laws. You are free to move to another country where
the laws regarding this issue are different and more to your
liking.

Your part in this is to discuss what you personally feel is
moral and correct. But you can never change Ed's reports because
he is not talking about his personal opinion here. He will
always report what is legal fact and therefore you and he
will invariably disagree because you feel that the existing
law is immoral and wrong.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:34:20 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

But if he stupidly goes into what he knows is a volitale situation with both
guns a blazing and without first assessing the risks and taking reasonable
precautions as to the safety of himself and others then he realistically has
no business being in the position of peacekeeper in the first place.

Ill give you a hint...most cops are NOT trained to be peacekeepers,
but Law Enforcement Officers, these days.


They dont like peacekeepers. There is no revenue generation or
headlines in peacekeeping.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

On 23 Nov 2004 19:41:51 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
John you need to give this discussion with ed up. He is talking
in a knowledgeable way about the legal implications. He is
talking about specific features of the existing case law that
cannot be wished away. They are the present law of the land
and no matter how much you feel otherwise, you are bound
by those laws. You are free to move to another country where
the laws regarding this issue are different and more to your
liking.

Uh, the Taliban lost control of Afghanistan.

Gary

In article , Gary Coffman says...

... You are free to move to another country where
the laws regarding this issue are different and more to your
liking.

Uh, the Taliban lost control of Afghanistan.

LOL.

Didn't think I'd catch *you* with that one! g

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , John Flanagan
says...

My understanding is that abortion rights (are) based on the notion of
freedom of conscience, ie privacy, which also is the basis of freedom
of speech. I may be wrong though.

John you need to give this discussion with ed up. He is talking
in a knowledgeable way about the legal implications. He is
talking about specific features of the existing case law that
cannot be wished away. They are the present law of the land
and no matter how much you feel otherwise, you are bound
by those laws. You are free to move to another country where
the laws regarding this issue are different and more to your
liking.

Your part in this is to discuss what you personally feel is
moral and correct. But you can never change Ed's reports because
he is not talking about his personal opinion here. He will
always report what is legal fact and therefore you and he
will invariably disagree because you feel that the existing
law is immoral and wrong.

Let me point out that I don't disparage John's stance on the moral issues in
abortion. I do have opinions about them but I usually avoid getting into
discussions about what is right or wrong about it.

This issue, like many other social and moral issues that we wrestle with in
the US, has a legal component and a moral component. Roe is a landmark case,
in legal terms, and is worth examining as a Constitutional argument. I'm
trying to keep my moral opinions out of it, and just to focus on the legal
issues. Among other things, they're a good way to see how our Supreme Court
actually operates, and how desired outcomes -- what Bork has called
"adjudication for results" -- become tangled up with logic and with
Constitutional history.

Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Let me point out that I don't disparage John's stance on the moral issues in
abortion. I do have opinions about them but I usually avoid getting into
discussions about what is right or wrong about it.

It's pretty clear that's what you are doing. g I think that
this topic always runs a *high* risk of folks getting their law
and their morals and their emotions in a tangle. I don't think
anyone can rightfully say that somebody else's moral position is
flat out incorrect. But the law is another thing, you can't
BS that.

This issue, like many other social and moral issues that we wrestle with in
the US, has a legal component and a moral component. Roe is a landmark case,
in legal terms, and is worth examining as a Constitutional argument. I'm
trying to keep my moral opinions out of it, and just to focus on the legal
issues. Among other things, they're a good way to see how our Supreme Court
actually operates, and how desired outcomes -- what Bork has called
"adjudication for results" -- become tangled up with logic and with
Constitutional history.


Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Let me point out that I don't disparage John's stance on the moral issues
in
abortion. I do have opinions about them but I usually avoid getting into
discussions about what is right or wrong about it.

It's pretty clear that's what you are doing. g I think that
this topic always runs a *high* risk of folks getting their law
and their morals and their emotions in a tangle. I don't think
anyone can rightfully say that somebody else's moral position is
flat out incorrect. But the law is another thing, you can't
BS that.

Well, as long as we're trying to be objective about the law, let's pick your
statement apart. FWIW, my opinion about abortion, as with many other things,
happens to fall right on the 50-yard line of American opinion about it,
according to polls: I object to third-trimester abortion except in case of a
real threat to the mother's life, and I'm squirrely about late
second-trimester abortion. It doesn't matter why, although I'd talk about it
if it meant anything.

You're right that it's difficult to separate the law and emotions on this
issue. That's why it's worth doing. And that's why it's worth examining the
Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade, to see if we can figure out whether they
adjudicated for results, or if they produced a correct, honest
Constitutional opinion.

And no, it's quite rightfully possible to say that someone else's moral
decision is incorrect. Like John, I tend to be a moral absolutist. But I
recognize that there are competing absolutes. g

Finally, you sure as hell can b.s. the law. Read Rehnquist's dissenting
opinion in Roe. I can point out a couple of places where he flat-out b.s.'d
it. And there is a critical point in Bush v. Gore that is complete b.s.

But the Justices got away with it. They usually get away with it.

Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:34:20 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

But if he stupidly goes into what he knows is a volitale situation with
both
guns a blazing and without first assessing the risks and taking
reasonable
precautions as to the safety of himself and others then he realistically
has
no business being in the position of peacekeeper in the first place.

Ill give you a hint...most cops are NOT trained to be peacekeepers,
but Law Enforcement Officers, these days.


They dont like peacekeepers. There is no revenue generation or
headlines in peacekeeping.


Then they got no business being in the business of law enforcement either.

--

SVL

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:50:25 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:34:20 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

But if he stupidly goes into what he knows is a volitale situation with
both
guns a blazing and without first assessing the risks and taking
reasonable
precautions as to the safety of himself and others then he realistically
has
no business being in the position of peacekeeper in the first place.

Ill give you a hint...most cops are NOT trained to be peacekeepers,
but Law Enforcement Officers, these days.


They dont like peacekeepers. There is no revenue generation or
headlines in peacekeeping.


Then they got no business being in the business of law enforcement either.

There are two philosophies to police. You can be one of the two, but
seldom both

1. Law Enforcement. Often a front for Revenue Generation

2. Peace Officer. Considers his job to be keeping the peace.

Andy of Mayberry was a #2.

Most young rookie cops lead the way in #1.

I went into the business to be a Peace Officer. When I found that I
couldnt, I quit.

Gunner




Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:30:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

There are two philosophies to police. You can be one of the two, but
seldom both

1. Law Enforcement. Often a front for Revenue Generation

2. Peace Officer. Considers his job to be keeping the peace.

Andy of Mayberry was a #2.

Most young rookie cops lead the way in #1.

I went into the business to be a Peace Officer.

You probably got free ammo.

When I found that I couldnt, I quit.

They probably started charging for overuse.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:17:30 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
And all men are created equal has no bearing on our legal system?

It does not. Objectively it is a false statement. No two, with the
possible exception of identical twins, men are created equal. There
are genetic differences which can and do have a profound impact
on the physical and mental faculties of individuals, ie they are inherently
different, unique, not equal. Even for the case of identical twins, there
are environmental factors in utero which can produce individuals with
significantly different capabilities at birth. This is so self-evident that
anyone can see that the notion of equal creation is false on its face.

What the Constitution requires is that all men be treated equally *by
the law*. That doesn't mean all men are created equal, only that they
be treated by the law *as if that were so*. But there are exceptions
(numerous) even to that. The law recognizes that mental defect,
certain physical defects, etc require that individuals be treated
differently under law in certain regards. Civil service exams, Army
physicals, driver's license exams, etc all show that the government
doesn't actually accept the notion that all men are equal.

One such exception relevant to this thread is when external life
support is required for an individual to live. The law recognizes
that there are circumstances when such life support can be withheld
or terminated, whether that life support be artificial or natural. With
few exceptions, that decision is normally left to relatives and doctors
rather than to courts, lawyers, and politicians.

Then slavery really is legal isn't it, constitutionally speaking?

It *was*, until the Constitution was amended to forbid it.

In any event, talk about slavery and equal rights only applies
to *born persons*. The Constitution is essentially mute with
respect to the status of the unborn fetus. But if we want to
drag slavery into the issue, a case could be made that women
unwilling to bear a fetus to term would effectively be held in
involuntary servitude as life support machinery if the religious
right should prevail. That would violate the 14th Amendment.

This non-viability outside the womb is at the crux of the matter
biologically and ethically. The evolving law in the matter centers
around at what point the fetus is capable of independent survival
outside the womb. Once a fetus can demonstrate that via a live
birth, it achieves the status of a born person under law, and the
full force of the Constitution swings into play. Prior to that point,
it is merely a parasitic growth in a woman's body, a private medical
matter to be treated in whatever way the woman and her doctor
decide is most desirable and prudent.

IMHO this is right and proper. The government should not have
the power to force a woman to have an abortion, or prevent her
from having one. It is not in government's proper purview to infringe
the rights of a viable born person in favor of an unviable *potential*
person. That's a dangerous road of prior restraint that we shouldn't
be going down.

Gary

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 03:47:14 GMT, Strabo wrote:
Regardless of the provocation, one always has a choice AND
one must always accept responsibility for one's actions
regardless of the provocation.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/storie.../11/14/8094865

It should be noted that tasers aren't non-lethal weapons. Locally,
there have been two reported cases in the past 3 months of people
dying (cardiac arrest) after being shot by police with the taser. In
neither case was the use of lethal force justified. Local police are
now revising their training and doctrine on the use of tasers.

Tasers can be a somewhat less deadly alternative to a conventional
firearm, but their use is still the use of deadly force, and needs to be
handled under the same rules of engagement. In other words, if the
cops in those incidents wouldn't have shot those children with their
service firearms, they shouldn't have shot them with the taser either.

Gary

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:17:30 GMT,
snip
The government should not have
the power to force a woman to have an abortion, or prevent her
from having one. It is not in government's proper purview to infringe
the rights of a viable born person in favor of an unviable *potential*
person. That's a dangerous road of prior restraint that we shouldn't
be going down.

Gary
That is the most viable statement I have ever heard in this debate. It
should preface any argument pro or con to lay down a base-line.
It is patently irrefutable!

Regards.
Ken.


--
http://www.rupert.net/~solar
Return address supplied by 'spammotel'
http://www.spammotel.com

In article , Gary Coffman says...

... The government should not have
the power to force a woman to have an abortion, or prevent her
from having one. It is not in government's proper purview to infringe
the rights of a viable born person in favor of an unviable *potential*
person. That's a dangerous road of prior restraint that we shouldn't
be going down.

Thus speaks a *true* conservative who would have the
government's power strictly limited. I fear that you
are going to be disapointed, Gary, in the next four
years though.

I think they *are* going there, and they *will* overturn
R v Wade.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:49:43 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

Tasers can be a somewhat less deadly alternative to a conventional
firearm, but their use is still the use of deadly force, and needs to be
handled under the same rules of engagement. In other words, if the
cops in those incidents wouldn't have shot those children with their
service firearms, they shouldn't have shot them with the taser either.

Gary

Tasers are VERY much less deadly than a conventional firearm.

I would imagine that you would also say that if they wouldnt have shot
a suspect with their firearm, they shouldnt use a night stick on them,
as there have been many recorded deaths via blunt trauma etc when
night sticks have been used.

Correct?

Gunner, one time certified PR-24 instructor (Monodnock certified)


Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:39:31 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:49:43 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

Tasers can be a somewhat less deadly alternative to a conventional
firearm, but their use is still the use of deadly force, and needs to be
handled under the same rules of engagement. In other words, if the
cops in those incidents wouldn't have shot those children with their
service firearms, they shouldn't have shot them with the taser either.

Gary

Tasers are VERY much less deadly than a conventional firearm.

To children?
You'd rather just shoot them, right?

Was not there something about the effects & causes of electrocution?
In the US you can electrocute those a young as seven years IIRC.
Anyone know what/who the youngest sent to death row so far is? It's
a growth industry.

What's that about Wackenhut & the neocons?
--
Cliff